Woman burns her boyfriend's house down after he refused to have sex with her.

Uh, Subby? There's nothing about burning the house down in that article. It says she punched two walls and broke a picture, and then bled all over the place. Which is still bad, but it's a far cry from "burns her boyfriend's house down".

Theaetetus:Woman burns her boyfriend's house down after he refused to have sex with her.

Uh, Subby? There's nothing about burning the house down in that article. It says she punched two walls and broke a picture, and then bled all over the place. Which is still bad, but it's a far cry from "burns her boyfriend's house down".

Theaetetus:Woman burns her boyfriend's house down after he refused to have sex with her.

Uh, Subby? There's nothing about burning the house down in that article. It says she punched two walls and broke a picture, and then bled all over the place. Which is still bad, but it's a far cry from "burns her boyfriend's house down".

You're absolutely right. There's nothing about arson in the article. I guess I must have been thinking about another article when I posted it. I'll keep looking and let you know if she did indeed burn down her ex's house.

offmymeds:Theaetetus: Woman burns her boyfriend's house down after he refused to have sex with her.

Uh, Subby? There's nothing about burning the house down in that article. It says she punched two walls and broke a picture, and then bled all over the place. Which is still bad, but it's a far cry from "burns her boyfriend's house down".

You're absolutely right. There's nothing about arson in the article. I guess I must have been thinking about another article when I posted it. I'll keep looking and let you know if she did indeed burn down her ex's house.

/subby

Looks like Theaetetus is right. Sorry about the slip-up folks. Give Theaetetus a cookie.

Think it's the third repeat today. It's all kind of a blur to me at this point. If anything it means we need to spend a little less time here.

Agreed with spending less time here. Its no wonder so few submissions get greened when admins can't be bothered to actually check out what is has been submitted and just randomly select based on a few key words in a headline.

Think it's the third repeat today. It's all kind of a blur to me at this point. If anything it means we need to spend a little less time here.

Agreed with spending less time here. Its no wonder so few submissions get greened when admins can't be bothered to actually check out what is has been submitted and just randomly select based on a few key words in a headline.

I like it here. I just think "less time" as my best alternative for a positive Farking experience, as well as perhaps getting more work done. Even though I (think I) am good at spotting repeats, I'd be the worst modmin.

Nana's Vibrator:I like it here. I just think "less time" as my best alternative for a positive Farking experience, as well as perhaps getting more work done. Even though I (think I) am good at spotting repeats, I'd be the worst modmin.

I remember back in 2003 when I first found Fark, it was a lot easier to maintain an overview of the threads - in my opinion there are far too many threads these days to keep up.But money probably dictates the pace - more clicks, more checks.